The Catholic church's last days?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
It can't stand alone. The context and the target audience matter.

Even if there was a lone sentence that said:

Thou shalt abstain from blood.

...and we could take that as a standalone commandment, what would it mean? Abstain from drinking blood? Eating something that has blood in it? Eating something that once had blood? [i.e., thou shalt ...[text shortened]... the distant future in the middle of a sentence focused on behaviors of society at that time.

I would think if I were told to abstain from a poisen, that would include all the above. If that poisen would kill you if you swallowed it, then would you put it into your veins? Would you touch it with your fingers? Of course not.

And the issue of blood residue being in meat, God said to drain the blood out of the meat and then cook it as is the common practice in most of the world. That process is acceptable to God as he is the one that gave that permission to humans as Robbie explained.

Originally posted by galveston75
And the issue of blood residue being in meat, God said to drain the blood out of the meat and then cook it as is the common practice in most of the world. That process is acceptable to God as he is the one that gave that permission to humans as Robbie explained.

So what bearing does this latest little reactive pronouncement by you have upon the several occasions you have written NO EXCEPTIONS, NO EXCEPTIONS, over and over again, in capital letters, in various posts on this topic?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Not quite, for if the doctrine was a central to Christianity as is being made out, then one
would think that Christ or Paul or any other Christian writers for that matter would
have made clear reference to it, but they do not, thus its complete absence from the
Biblical cannon must be of some concern given its apparent centrality. The Bible on ...[text shortened]... nsfusions, for his is a moral stance, not some
article of faith handed down by church fathers.

If you put all the references to the idea that God is more tha a simple one together, rather than scattered throughout scripture, then there is a clear reference to it.

I have quoted some of the exact references many times, so you should know what they are. However, I will briefy explain these.

In Genesis, it refers to God as creating the heavens and the earth. Then it mentions that the (Holy) Spirit of God is over the waters covering the earth. The Hebrew word for God used in Genesis is the plural form (elohim, Strong's 430) of the singular (eloah, Strong's 433). Strong's defines "elohim" as meaning "gods" in the ordinary sense and as "God" when used specific of the Supreme God. Strong's indicates that the singular "eloah" is a deity, god, God.

On the sixth day of creation, God says, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion ..." So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
WHY IS GOD REFERRED TO AS BOTH PLURAL AND SINGULAR?

However, you are always citing verses such as (Dueteronomy 6:4 NKJV) Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord. The phrase "one Lord" is preceded in the Hebrew by elohenu, God in a plural form.

The Hebrew word for one is (echad, strong's 259) and it can mean both one in unity and one numerically for Strong's defines it as "united, one, first, altogether."

This is what Hebrew scholars say about this:

The word for one is not a numerical one but is actually a united one. The Hebrew word for one is echad, which comes from the root word achad, which means to unify or collect together (the intensive reflexive form signifying to unite). If this was meant to be a strict numerical statement then Moses should have used the word yachid, which means a absolute one, single, only one. Yachid is used twelve times in the Scriptures NOT ONCE is it used for Jehovah God.

The Bible defines how the word one is used

Gen.1:5 evening and morning are called one day ( a combination of two parts to make one) they are both considered a day yet we can distinguish them as different phases.

Gen. 2:24 Adam and Eve become one flesh (Here two personalities who come together in marriage and are one, not one person but in unity. God sees them as one even though they are not physically fused together like Siamese twins. If we take the Oneness view this would be the only consideration for our understanding.

Gen.11:6 the people are one Ezra 2:64 the whole assembly of Israel is like one.

Num. 13:23 according to their view When the spies went over into the land of Canaan they brought back one grape (Heb. eschal echad.) Thats one big grap ! Can anyone actually think it was a numerical statement. It means a cluster of grapes.

Ps.133:1 the brethren is to dwell as one ( in unity) 1 Sam.3:17 they are called one company 2 Sam. 2:25 one troop 1 kings 7:42 one tribe 1 Kings 11:13 Israel is called one nation.

Ez. 37:17 Ezekial is told to put two sticks together and combined they become one stick. Showing the nation would be unified. In all these examples can anyone find them to be a strict singular meaning ? This same word is applied to the one God and is clearly used as a compound unity. You can twist and turn at the truth of the matter , you can be uncomfortable in its teaching but you can’t remove its consistent usage in the scripture.

The word for a strict single is yachid it is used in Gen.22:2 "Take thy one and only son." This can also be used for God's only son being unique and one of a kind.

http://www.letusreason.org/Onenes13.htm

One nation is mentioned in 2 Samuel 7:23 and we know that a nation is always made up of more than a single person, so WHY CAN'T ONE GOD BE MADE UP OF THREE PERSONS?

These are just some of the things from the Old Testament alone and I didn't even explain Holy, Holy, Holy. So we can see it is referring to a united/composite oneness of God and not an absolute numerical one. Therefore, the Old Testament leaves open the possibility of three persons being united as one God that is explained in more detail in the New Testament.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you put all the references to the idea that God is more tha a simple one together, rather than scattered throughout scripture, then there is a clear reference to it.

I have quoted some of the exact references many times, so you should know what they are. However, I will briefy explain these.

In Genesis, it refers to God as creating the heavens and t ...[text shortened]... the New Testament.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

I wont even pretend i read that bilge, attention span is low today.

Originally posted by galveston75
I would think if I were told to abstain from a poisen, that would include all the above. If that poisen would kill you if you swallowed it, then would you put it into your veins? Would you touch it with your fingers? Of course not.

And the issue of blood residue being in meat, God said to drain the blood out of the meat and then cook it as is the com ...[text shortened]... s is acceptable to God as he is the one that gave that permission to humans as Robbie explained.

Blood does not kill you like poison. The reason for putting blood in the veins is to save ones life, not to take it. Even the Holy Bible says the life is in the blood. The prohibition concerns the abstaining from doing ungoldy things, like the Pagan practice of sacrificlng animals and humans to their gods and eating the meat and drinking the blood along with immoral sexual practices. They had no intention of prohibiting anyone from saving anothers life.

http://www.americasblood.org/go.cfm?do=page.view&pid=12

Originally posted by galveston75
I would think if I were told to abstain from a poisen, that would include all the above. If that poisen would kill you if you swallowed it, then would you put it into your veins? Would you touch it with your fingers? Of course not.

And the issue of blood residue being in meat, God said to drain the blood out of the meat and then cook it as is the com ...[text shortened]... s is acceptable to God as he is the one that gave that permission to humans as Robbie explained.

Sheesh. This one is so easy, even RJHinds can give the obvious response. 😛

So go on then. Drain all the blood from your body if you believe that you are really supposed to abstain from blood in any form. And take care not to touch the blood if you get cut - you'll have to find some heathen to clean it up for you.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Blood does not kill you like poison. The reason for putting blood in the veins is to save ones life, not to take it. Even the Holy Bible says the life is in the blood. The prohibition concerns the abstaining from doing ungoldy things, like the Pagan practice of sacrificlng animals and humans to their gods and eating the meat and drinking the blood along w ...[text shortened]... ing anyone from saving anothers life.

http://www.americasblood.org/go.cfm?do=page.view&pid=12

You just don't get the point here do you? No one said blood is poison and that is not what I was implying. I would think a 2nd grader would get the example I was making.
But again.........The God you say YOU worship and that is written down in YOUR bible says to ABSTAIN from blood.

Do you follow your gods commands or not?

Probably not by your insistance on finding loop holes in his commands so you can do and believe as YOU want. It seems clearly to most here about a few different subjects is that on a regular basis YOU pick and choose as you go to fit God's words to your life and desires, not your life to God's words.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Sheesh. This one is so easy, even RJHinds can give the obvious response. 😛

So go on then. Drain all the blood from your body if you believe that you are really supposed to abstain from blood in any form. And take care not to touch the blood if you get cut - you'll have to find some heathen to clean it up for you.

That's about the quality answer I'd expect form RJH. Really, really dumb.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Not quite, for if the doctrine was a central to Christianity as is being made out, then one
would think that Christ or Paul or any other Christian writers for that matter would
have made clear reference to it, but they do not, thus its complete absence from the
Biblical cannon must be of some concern given its apparent centrality. The Bible on ...[text shortened]... nsfusions, for his is a moral stance, not some
article of faith handed down by church fathers.

One has to wonder why Paul nor anyone else made it clear that Jesus was the archangel Michael, but that is another point.

Originally posted by Conrau K
One has to wonder why Paul nor anyone else made it clear that Jesus was the archangel Michael, but that is another point.

he did make it clear, but it takes spiritual vision to comprehend it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
he did make it clear, but it takes spiritual vision to comprehend it.

It must be a vision from Satan. Did Satan appear to you as an angle of light, so you could comprehend such crap?

Originally posted by galveston75
You just don't get the point here do you? No one said blood is poison and that is not what I was implying. I would think a 2nd grader would get the example I was making.
But again.........The God you say YOU worship and that is written down in YOUR bible says to ABSTAIN from blood.

Do you follow your gods commands or not?

Probably not by your ...[text shortened]... d choose as you go to fit God's words to your life and desires, not your life to God's words.

I do not recall God ever commanding us to not give blood to save someone's life. Christ gave all His blood to save all out lives. That Includes saving the life of the body and the soul. I give some of my blood to save some lives. You do not follow in the foot steps of Christ, but you follow after you father the devil, who come to deceive, steal, and destroy for he was a murder from the beginning.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
he did make it clear, but it takes spiritual vision to comprehend it.

I am sure the same will be said by Trinitarians. To any outsider, this is clearly a case of hypocrisy. You insist on explicit Trinitarian doctrine to be stated in the Scripture, but not for blood transfusions nor for Jesus-Michael equation.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I do not recall God ever commanding us to not give blood to save someone's life. Christ gave all His blood to save all out lives. That Includes saving the life of the body and the soul. I give some of my blood to save some lives. You do not follow in the foot steps of Christ, but you follow after you father the devil, who come to deceive, steal, and destroy for he was a murder from the beginning.

Ok..where did he say to give our blood to use to put into anothers body?

Originally posted by galveston75
Ok..where did he say to give our blood to use to put into anothers body?

Again you require explicit scriptural approbation even though you do not require this of your own doctrines. It's hypocrisy. I would think the general moral imperative to save human life is enough justification for blood transfusions.